Item 3: Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions

Home Browse Search

a wetland delineation, the bill placed a 120-day timeframe on the DSL to either accept or reject the findings of the report. Ms. Bettman asked what would happen if the DSL did not meet the 120-day time limit. Mr. Wold replied that 120 days was adequate for DSL to review and that it was also fair timeframe for an applicant to wait that long. He noted that at this time there was no timeframe and reports were reviewed on an ‘as needed’ basis as the DSL was shorthanded. He stated that currently the DSL only reviewed wetland delineation reports associated with a development project, a restoration project, or other specific projects. He said the bill would allow the DSL to review delineation reports that come in submitted by a property owner who just wanted the information. The staff recommendation to give the bill a Priority 3 Support status stood. SB 966 Ms. Bettman noted that there were two recommendations for the bill. She preferred to adopt a Priority 1 Support stance. Ms. Taylor was amenable to this. Mayor Piercy asked if Ms. Wilson had discussed placing an amendment on the bill in regard to prescribed fires. Ms. Wilson affirmed that she had discussed it with Rep. Holvey and he did not see a problem with that amendment. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to adopt a Priority 1 Support stance on SB 966. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2251 Ms. Bettman wondered if the priority should be increased to a Priority 2. Ms. Wilson replied that the bill had already moved out of its first committee and was on its way to the Ways and Means Committee. Ms. Bettman ascertained from Ms. Wilson that it would not be necessary to change the priority at this time. HB 2019 Ms. Bettman asked if the bill had “any legs” and whether the CCIGR should oppose the bill with the amendment to remove the caps. Ms. Wilson responded that the bill had not had a hearing at this point. Ms. Bettman determined that no further action was needed at this time. HB 2010 Ms. Taylor thought the CCIGR should change the recommendation to Support. Ms. Bettman said the bill sounded like it removed any obligation for a 20-year buildable land supply. Mr. Yeiter explained that parts of the bill would take away the 20-year supply requirement until the year 2010. He said the reason staff had recommended opposing the bill because of the very restrictive require- ment that the City not be allowed to expand onto adequate or good farmland in the Willamette Valley. He stated that the requirement did not mesh well with other statutes about urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion in regard to how the City would decide upon such expansion. He noted that it was also unclear about what the City would do in the case of not being able to find land to expand on. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 5, 2007 Page 5